1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine

1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report

1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times

1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context

1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989

1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report

1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001

2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003

2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

The actual Global Warming Advocates' chart, overlayed on the "climate change" hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it clear that they take any change and claim it's going to go on forever and kill everyone, but notice that they even sometimes get the short-term trend wrong...

Worse still, notice that in 1933 they claim global warming has been going on for 25 years…the entire 25 years they were saying we were entering an ice age. And in 1974, they say there has been global cooling for 40 years…the entire time of which they’d been claiming the earth was getting hotter! Of course NOW they are talking about the earth “warming for the past century”, again ignoring that they spent much of that century claiming we were entering an ice age.

The fact is that the mean temperature of the planet is, and should be, always wavering up or down, a bit, because this is a natural world, not a climate-controlled office. So there will always be some silly bureaucrat, in his air-conditioned ivory tower, who looks at which way it’s going right now, draws up a chart as if this is permanant, realizes how much fear can increase his funding, and proclaims doom for all of humanity.

2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT

2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London

2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” – Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006

2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes

Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower, and the chart needlessly tall to stretch the up-down differences in the line.

PLEASE COMMENT BELOW!

Please give me feedback. Criticism is even more welcome than flattery (which is very welcome).

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was the longest recorded time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all.

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept.

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

Google “Two Minute Conservative,” and you will be applauded when you speak truth at your next dinner party, barbecue or church picnic.

You’ve seen the websites, ladies and gentlemen. You’ve heard the arguments and reviewed the data. But have you seen the CLEAR STATISTICAL CORRELATION between “Hot Air” and “Climate of Fear”??? I think not! I present to you…CLIMATE-BULLSHIT1.JPG!!!! THE DEFENSE RESTS!!!!

This is complete unscientific nonsense. There are mountains of peer reviewed paper out there that refute all the tricks of manipulation of statistics, ignoring relevant data, cherry picking, using highly specific anecdotes to support ridiculous assertions. Its all bullshit, you tinfoil hatters are contemptible retrograde examples of critical thinking gone crazy. It is embarrassing that hominids evolved at all if your intellectual prowess is the summation of evolution. Should have left it to the dinosaurs!

In the mid to late 1990s, when I worked in the DC area, at NASA, NSF, NOAA, and elsewhere, I had more than one scientist tell me that he had to massage his papers to not undermine the global warming myth, or else they would never pass peer review. In other words, instead of peer review ensuring scientific rigour, it ATTACKS it, and forwards a political agenda.

So saying “peer review papers say so” is not only idiotic, sheep-like authority worship, but it in fact is circumstantial evidence AGAINST your superstition.

The very RULES of hard science refute the anti-scientific lie of “global warming” as well as all of the observations that say we’ve had GLOBAL COOLING for one or two decades, depending on how you calculate it.

Even NASA, who lied, keeping the raw data secret (in violation of every scientific standard) during the first part of the cooling, has been forced to admit it.

The “climate change” lie is one of Fear Equals Funding, something I learned at both NASA and NOAA. They don’t care that they’re lying, they just want to justify their budgets.

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make
his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global
warmers” fear. It was 500 years of great abundance for the world.

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature
increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around.

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of great abundance for the world.

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years. That makes temperature change the cause and CO2 change the effect; it is not the other way around. Finally…

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188
times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

[…] know something else. There have been alternate warming and cooling scares about every thirty years since 1895. Fear equals funding. So what will the next scare be? It will be cooling since temperatures are […]

I was living in KCMO Kansas City Missouri, when Mt St Helens erupted, I think it was about 1975-80. In a local newspaper I read, “That one volcano did more damage to the atmosphere than man could do as long as he was on this earth.” I believe there are a number active at this very moment, above and below the sea, so what hope have we got of making any difference at all to the climate change. STOP THE VOLCANOES! If this is true it makes the scaremongers look a bit silly Aye! I do agree that we need to take care of our excessive emissions, eg cattle farting, (do kangaroos do it as much as cows? If not let’s eat them instead, or even milk them if we can) etc,; and also like we try to drink only clean water, reduce tobacco use, or drink more alcohiol to kill germs etc. HaHa!. Graeme Johnson. Frankston Victoria Australia.

In another blog, Prof. Bob Carter posted a comment on the media timeline shown at the beginning of this article. Prof. Carter said he’d like to see a similar timeline that reflected what was published in peer-reviewed scientific literature (for added credibility).

I agree with Prof. Carter. However, I would like to see that ANY version, be it for media articles or peer reviewed studies, include a timeline showing year to year funding for climate research (from both governmental and NGO sources). Then, inserted into this timeline, I’d like to see the above list of wild, ridiculous, speculative, or bizarre consequences attributed to manmade warming by scientists who received climate research funding.

The idea is to show the prescience of Prof. Stephen Schneider’s comments at year 1989 in the timeline: “… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …” Stated differently, I’d like the timeline/funding list to show that the public (and science) gets less and less value from increases in climate research funding. Stated still differently, I want to show that climate research funding has become a huge night light that attracts scientists who must publish something to get a piece of the funding. Prof. Schneider’s comments regarding a scientist’s moral dilemma may actually provide the competitive edge for the writing of successful research grant proposals!

Great goods from you, man. I’ve bear in mind your stuff previous to and you are simply too wonderful. I really like what you’ve bought here, certainly like what you are saying and the best way through which you are saying it. You are making it enjoyable and you still care for to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to read far more from you. This is actually a terrific web site.

Have “Crisis” and “Catastrophe” Lost Their Meaning?
Obama to Copenhagen but No Berlin?
Heritage’s Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill
Late for a party? Miss a meeting? Forget to pay your rent? Blame climate change; everyone else is doing it. From an increase in severe acne to all societal collapses since the beginning of time, just about everything gone wrong in the world today can be attributed to climate change. Here’s a list of 100 story lines blaming climate change as the problem. (Note: plus one or two added more recently by this person).

As a professional auditor, I’m forever obtaining and evaluating evidence. I became interested in the climate debate because of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. So I decided to examine the evidence.

I have spent thousands of hours researching… to understand both sides to the climate debate (e.g. I went through the IPCC’s AR4 report, but I also went through the “Climate Change Reconsidered report by the NIPCC; I read books, blogs, magazines, research papers, authoritative web sites, and more).

I have come to the firm conclusion that nothing about our weather and climate is unprecedented. I have come to the conclusion that climate scientists still need to learn so much more about earth’s complex chaotic climate system before they can be so bold as to claim that CO2 is the key driver of catastrophic man-made global warming and climate change, or that certain weather events have been caused by man-made global warming. I have also learnt that predicting weather beyond say a couple of weeks is too difficult, and on that basis, predicting future climate is simply impossible.

I have not found any persuasive evidence that proves CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming or even driving climate change as claimed by the IPCC… there is no empirical evidence supporting this view.

I have come to the conclusion that the evidence is stronger in support of the idea that our climate is driven by numerous complex factors involving, for example, solar magnetic activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation, lunar position, and ocean currents.

I also think the Central England Temperature record is probably a reliable temperature proxy record to work off. It shows no evidence of any runaway global warming since the mid 1600s.

If I had to issue an audit opinion on the IPCC AR4 report, it would have to be a disclaimer opinion. In fact, I would go so far as to state that if the IPCC AR4 report were subject to the same standards of accountability as under corporations legislation, the IPCC members would probably be facing jail sentences for releasing misleading information to the public, and grossly deceiving the public by claiming its report was based only on peer reviewed scientific literature (the best science) when in reality, approximately 30% of the 18,500+ citations are now known to have related to “grey literature” such as articles by campaigning organizations like WWF and Greenpeace… which are not even close to being peer reviewed scientific literature.

What I have also learnt from my research is that the climate change debate has become over-politicized to the point that it now overrides real climate science. It’s now all about regulating and taxing ‘carbon’ to fix an imaginary future problem. To even think that certain people could assume that humans could tame and control the weather and climate, Mother Nature, demonstrates the madness on the part of some, in relation to this debate over man-made global warming.

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make
his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global
warmers” fear. It was 500 years of great abundance for the world.

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature
increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around.

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of
carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than
anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

[…] weve all heard the key phrase “fish when the fish are biting,” however what if you were also the only one fishing? Here we are discussing certain points which will enable you to decrease your competition and increase the income Colorado Insurance. . Usually, Brokers specifically employment from Monday to Friday on routine basis, however many customers submit quote requests on the weekends when they have more dedicated age to accomplish tasks. Since of this, there can be a benefit to following-up with … More information: เสื้อผ้าเด็กขา&#… […]

Climate Change is a fact of life, Climate has always changed, is changing now, and will continue to change in the future, and it is completely NATURAL.
The only constant in Climate is Change, and IF mankind has any effect it is too small to measure, and does not involve CO2 (Plant Food). All life on earth is Carbon based, and Carbon’s life giving oxide CO2 is in short supply, ALL life forms would benefit with more of it not less.

I’be ut together a timeline from 1972 (Maurice Strong’s appearance on the climate scene), through 1992 (Dr. Richard Sandor’s appearance on the climate scene) to the present. What stood out like a sore thumb was the fact that Prof. Mann’s Hockey Stick first was published the year following the passage of the Byrd-Hagel Senate Resolution in which the Senate made that strong statement that they would not go along with the Kyoto Protocals. Was this coincidence? Or was the Hockey Stick manufactured to create the crisis that was needed to move public opinion and push the Seante into action. I think it is obvious which it was!

[…] The blog But Now You Know, one of those fighting the global warming movement, has published a timeline of the global warming and global cooling hooey that has been put out by the academia and the media, […]

Nice job on compiling this information. As a companion to your work here, I have also created a web page titled “Climategate in Review”, where I track the facts relating to the Climategate scandal, which I wanted to get organized so that it could be used as a reference tool in attacking CO2 or Cap-&-Tax legislation base upon bogus science. I just added a link to your page. Take a look at:

If you look carefully, you’ll notice I added some of the media links on my timeline that you have on yours. I still say there’s an interesting contrast between what the media publishes, and what the peer-reviewed papers publish.

Could it be that the media just isn’t a credible source of information? BTW – Media articles does not equal science.

I already established what was desperate about it: Your timeline was, in effect, the equivalent of taking the whole timeline, and then excluding any cooling hysteria…then pretending what’s left proves consistency.

This timeline includes mainstream journalists, almost invariably, referring to specific scientists or scientific publications. The only way you could ACTUALLY improve it with yours, would be to ADD to it.

Meanwhile, the transparent authority-worship of constantly talking about “peer-reviewed” publication has pretty much been laid to waste by the climategate and similar scandals. Peer review is, quite literally and even by intent, censorship. And, as was inevitable, it moved long ago from ensuring methodology, to protecting the Status Quo, the pseudoscientific conventional wisdom, even though it routinely turns out wrong.

Not only do we now know of examples of people saying that since peer review didn’t censor a magazine sufficiently, that magazine should be discredited, but I have been aware of this firsthand, since before you even knew about Global Warming as an issue:

Back in the mid nineties, a friend of mine who was head scientist on a key solar/climate project, complained to me that his findings were contradicting global warming, and that he was having to massage the data, making it support global warming, in order to pass peer review. The pretense is that peer review prevents massaging data, but in reality it gets used to FORCE the massaging of data, it PUNISHES good methodology, when that contradicts the conventional wisdom.

The credo of peer review panels is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, but this is the polar opposite of ALL sound scientific methodology.

Then again, climate scientists don’t follow the scientific method. They are not scientific realists, but instrumentalists. Instrumentalism would have, in effect, supported the belief in dryads, if only it had become mainstream to the “scientific” establishment sooner.

[…] The Climate Change Timeline documents the pattern of claims that the earth was suffering runaway cooling, warming, cooling, then warming, every time the temperature naturally rose or fell in a perfectly healthy cycle. […]

…by geo-historical standards, Earth is in a deep CO2 famine. We would benefit greatly (agriculture, etc.) from getting back to about 2,000 ppm. There would be no resultant warming.

The real control on temperature is called a “Heat Pipe”. Evaporating water cools the surface, and at the top of condensing clouds dumps its heat, much of which goes directly out into space as H2O-band IR radiation (which is wider and stronger and different from CO2’s band). The IR is unblocked because there is no H2O in the upper atmosphere; it’s all in the clouds, and below.

So CO2 can NEVER warm the surface. There is this huge, powerful water-heat pump getting rid of the heat. (Venus lacks water, by the way, which is why it stays hot.)

So if we could increase CO2, it would be great. Unfortunately, our input is far too puny to achieve that even if we went flat-out to try.

It seems to me that more and more the idea of a greenhouse effect at all in the first place is being questioned.
I stumbled across this by the simple analogy of a vacuum flask.
How does a vacuum flask know to keep a hot thing hot, and a cold thing cold. ?
Simple, it does not know the temperature of what it contains, the vacuum merely effectively stops conduction.

There is another larger “thing” though with the vacuum flask analogy.
If space is cold, then so must a vacuum be.
In which case how does a vacuum flask keep something hot, well hot. ?
Answer – Because space is not cold, it is temeprature “neutral”, because it has no temperature.
How can nothing have a temperature. ?

If space is not cold, then the earth is not “insulated” from cold space by the greenhouse effect,
but merely an object in a vacuum, radiating heat according to it’s temperature (Planck curve).

The very idea of a greenhouse effect “theory” violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics as the T&G paper showed.
Not that there is a generally agreed “version” of how the greenhouse effect supposedly works.

I think this will be the “story” of 2010, and the final death of everything built off the grrenhouse effect “theory”,
namely the AGW scam.
It will dawn on many that the vast majority of the present climate change “believers” and “sceptics” discussions have been from a false basis,
namely accepting the greenhouse effect theory in the first place.

This is pretty wacko conspiracy stuff, all those physicists couldn’t even pass Physics 101, right, but you can? Go back and take some physics classes, you’re just wrong, but it’s not reasonable to teach thermodynamics in a comment.

But my real question is: Why don’t skeptics reply to deep and obvious error on your own sites? Do you enjoy looking like you couldn’t pass freshman science classes?

I have no doubt that my description of the scientific method differs from a freshman science class…because they don’t teach real science.

What hard science requires is an adherence to the scientific method, which is no longer taught.

Scientific methodology requires fallibilism, and scientific realism, and the physicists you mention, along with junk climatologists, no longer stick to such hard science, but use something called instrumentalism.

Instrumentalism allows you to get away with a lot more, in order to sell your pseudoscience for a big profit in future research grants.

For example, if your theory makes a prediction, and it fails, hard science says you discard the theory and start over. It adamantly forbids just twisting the later details of your theory, when the failed prediction was a result of the fundamental parts.

But instrumentalists violate scientific principles, by changing later equations to fit the outcome, even though this makes them violate the underlying principles of the theory.

This disease started, in Physics, with the invalid Copenhagen Interpretation. Einstein, Popper, Schroedinger, and the other hard scientists were correct to reject the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, and oppose it for the rest of their lives.

It was the triumph of socialized junk science over real science.

And yet, of course, you’d never even heard of the above until I just explained it to you. So much for your cute little pseudoscientific smugness.

[…] Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 – But Now You Know There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…but it’s not what you may think: For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming. […]

SIMPLE COMMON SENSE TELLS YOU ITS ALL A SCAM FOR FREE MONEY ,NONE OF THERE PREDICITIONS HAVE EVER COME TRUE ,IF C02 WHICH IS NOT A POLLUTANT AND METHANE WHICH IS WERE BUILDING UP ALL THE TIME WE WOULDNT HAVE ANY OXIGEN AT ALL AFTER 4 BILLION YRS BUT METHANE IS NON SUSTAINABLE AND IS KILLED OFF BY THE SUN .

[…] flopped from warming scares to cooling scares and back again almost at the drop of a thermometer. Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 But Now You Know shows how the consensus has changed since the end of the 19th century. Do you blame me for being […]

NO NO NO!!!! way too much common sense. you cant expect the Goracle to understand this. better to be safe than sorry and just tax the snot out of us instead of showing the stupidity of the human collective.

Very interesting discussions. Reminds me of my father who lived to be 99 and saw both sides happening more than once in his lifetime. Lets take what God gives us and learn to use it wisely for His Glory.

Just like in the 70’s people said 1984 and fareinheigh 451 would be coming true, earth day people predicted that we would be covered in garbage by 1990, and “everyone” is convinced that global warming and refuse collection will kill all of us because we are “polluting everything.” I challenge all to read the GREENING OF AMERICA BY RACHEL CARSON who predicted that soon we would be in a bad way because of chemicals and made fun of the housing developments where children became disoriented because of all of the similarities of the developments. Her dire predictions did not pan out.Nor did those other doomsayers in the 1970’s

I agree with you, regarding the climate doomsaying; it is akin to the way that doomsday cults make predictions of specific dates, yet when those dates pass, they announce a new date and people somehow keep getting suckered in by it.

On the other hand, the dystopian scenarios of Orwell and friends are actually based on observations they were making at that time, and are really fairly accurate satires of what was going on in their own day. For example, Orwell witnessed the rise of fascism in Spain, and was aware of the oppression of Stalin’s Soviet Union, which was at least as bad as 1984.

How do you criticize doomsday cults in one paragraph and make a doomsday suggestion in another?
How is the United States moving to a dystopia? You’ve said so many intelligent, informed things in this blog about economics, and now you’re making a blatantly retarded statement. I am disappointed in you.
What are you scared of?

There is no question that the power of government in the US is expanding, and that natural rights are being violated because of it. Even those who are doing it don’t deny this, they just use Appeal to Cowardice to justify it.

Theories are what scientists make. As one scientist may theorize that Climate Change is not occurring or relevant, another may do the opposite. We must use resources and logic to come to our own conclusions. Those that study it (scientists) are the experts and we must trust our intuition on what is true and what is just mere bullshit. Educate yourself without manipulation. Don’t be ignorant and pay attention. My intuition says that it is hard to tell about climate change, but that human habits are disruptive with the rest of nature, and that we must find a balance. Without that balance, the earth will go on, we will not.

I do believe that there are tangible things that need immediate improvement that there is no argument to: poverty, lack of water (S. Cali, Arizona, New Mexico… all these desserts with thousands of people), over population, over filling landfills…

By the way I drive a hybrid and there is nothing inefficient about it. The car runs amazing, has incredible turning radius, and gets better gas mileage than any other car in the United States. The jokes really on anyone not driving one… because I guarantee you, Climate Change or not, gas prices are not going down in the long run!

You are also wrong about landfills. All the trash produced by all Americans, combined, would fit in a tiny corner of one state. The “overfill” is simply that many cities refuse to let the landfills be built.

And the solution to many problems is the opposite of what inductive reasoning would suggest. For example, the War on Poverty in the 60s and 70s created far more poverty. Giving poor people stuff just traps them in dependency.

Oh, and you’re mistaken:

The price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, will continue to decline, as do most commodity prices most of the time. The price of oil went through the roof, temporarily, because of our insane foreign policy scaring commodities speculators…not because of any imaginary shortage.

We have far more oil in the global reserve, now, than at any previous time in history, and it will keep increasing faster than we can extract it, because of technology.

People were imagining we were running out of oil in the late 1970s, too, and yet the price of gas/oil fell throughout the 1980 and 1990s, as supply outpaced demand.

Check out how bad the Ford Explorer is:http://www.chandlerswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/9-11-1.bmp
Poorly engineered and inefficient cars fund unstable governments in the Middle East and South America that directly fund terrorism.
Crude oil, like all resources, is scarce. It will not continue to exist forever unless some means of artificially producing it en masse comes about. Even then resources must be found to produce it, and those will be subject to consumption. No resource is infinite. Economies of scale to produce goods develop and lower prices, but after the resources become more scarce, the price of goods rise again until it is no longer profitable to develop the resource into a good. Prices do not shrink over time.
By the way, the nickel used in those batteries isn’t just used for the Toyota Prius. It’s also used for stainless steel alloys and chrome finishes. Can you think of all things you own that contain these? The environmental degradation from a single Canadian nickel plant is not the fault of the Toyota Prius alone. Practically any car that has shiny rims shares this fault.
Here’s the reality of that misconception you and many other people have: http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/pagenum/all/#page_start.
The Toyota Prius is green. It will become cheaper and greener as time goes by. Demand for them will not go away, and technologies will only improve. Stop being Luddites and deal with the fact that some people don’t like funding terrorism.

The United States government directly and openly funds those middle east governments that fund terrorism, like Saudi Arabia, which funds the hate schools that train them, and Pakistan, that actually put the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan with our backing.

Crude oil is not scarce, except in the sense of not being infinite. There is more oil in the Global Reserve today, than there was 30 years ago when we were told it would all run out within a decade.

What’s more, there’s strong scientific evidence that it’s not actually a “fossil fuel”, but is generated by other means and may be effectively in infinite supply, by human standards:

If you actually understand economics at all, surely you grasp that supply and demand ensure that any resource that is actually running out will increase in price, which will naturally regulate its use. Either more will be produced, alternatives located, or people will choose to do without. There is no need to force changes in behavior, when the free market does it with relatively perfect efficiency.

People who buy a chrome-plated pipe don’t have delusions of helping the planet. People who buy a Prius do. When they push to impose their will on others because of this ignorance, they need to be set straight.

Who fund terrorism through oil are the people who support the bans on extraction of oil in the United States. We have more oil than all but one Islamic country, but most of it is illegal to extract, because of the kind of people you apparently support.

I’m an Aussie. Our nation is dying due to climate change. Our view of this type of cherry picked junk science is remarkably patient. Perhaps knowing people profit and rejoice in the misery of others has a way of crystalising priorities.

Well, Mr. First Blogger [who ironically doesn’t have a domain name]. Perhaps deflate that ego, remember that “snapshot trick” [yeah, we get a lot of that down ‘ere] is intellectually absurd and present a thesis that is based on facts – not ideology. Google the company you’re in. Which are you? Book of Revelations? Eye on an oil company job? Acquired Brain Injury? Comic farce? Religious ‘figurehead’ – the chosen one syndrome? Or are you in a nut-case category of your own?

Meanwhile, I’ve got some slop on the shower floor I need to scoop up for cooking tonights dinner.

Climate change is anthropogenic. To deny it is – as Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty said – a crime against humanity.

Yup, up there with HIV/AIDS denial, condom denial, refusal to supply clean syringes to control HIV spread into all communities [also for ideology – god], denial of the Holocaust [also for ideological reasons], failure to vaccinate [also ideology].

Pseudoscientific piffle and the anthropomorhising of “the other” who dares think differently to you. That’s all I see here mate.

Fortunately, not everyone is as gullible and obedient as you…if you’re actually an atheist, it’s a waste of a lot of blind faith. Then again, certainty that there is nothing supernatural is even more impossible to prove than the global warming myth. But at least having blind faith in atheism doesn’t require coercing other people.

Robert Heinlein once said, through the character Lazarus Long: “If “everybody knows” such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”

And that, really, is what you Global Warming Faithful are forced to rely upon: “Everyone we worship KNOWS this is true, so it must be!”

I’ve read the major IPCC report, and much of the other “science” on the subject, have you?

You link to the blog of some frightened man-child, who is terrified that we will all suffer because a few don’t fall in line and submit to your masters on this or that Article of Faith…was that supposed to convince anyone here?

The pseudoscience, in this issue, is largely on the side of the Global Warming Profiteers that you worship. Even the “certainty” violates all principles of science, which require that one never lose sight of fallibilism.

And what, precisely, is it that you think “anthropomorphizing” (which I’m guessing you meant to spell…government schools Down Under must be as lacking as up here), that you would accuse me of doing this to people who think differently than I do?

Frankly, I think the opposite is true, in this case. I look down on the sheep.

You may have read the IPCC report, but unless you’ve actually studied science (the hard kind), you probably don’t understand what it says as well as a real scientist would, therefore your opinion on the report is baseless. You would read over words you don’t understand and interpret them to mean what you heard is true.
For all us non-scientists, the choice of whether or not global warming is real depends on what we want to believe. For those of us who like big business and don’t like regulation, climate change CAN’T be happening. It is a conspiracy by our enemies to destroy our economy. For everyone else, climate change probably is happening, because a bunch of smart people said so and I noticed it is rather hot out today.

This observation aside, I like to think of it like this:
-Is carbon dioxide pollution poisonous and dangerous?
Yes. If you don’t believe me, inhale your car’s exhaust for a while. Or, just travel to any industrial city in China and observe the lack of sky.
-Whether global warming is happening or not, is the aim of a preventing carbon dioxide emissions a good idea?
Yes. Carbon dioxide is not good for us and probably should be produced less. If we find more efficient ways of manufacture without all this CO2, the world might look nicer and people would be healthier.

You can also think of it in terms of game theory:

-If global warming isn’t happening, what would be the result in overhauling our economy to produce less carbon?
At most, a raised cost of entry for businesses who must comply with environmental standards. After increased production of “green” products for business to comply with standards, though, prices would drop. Therefore, the result would be a temporary shock to the business cycle.
-If global warming is happening, what then?
We would have suffered economically for a short time in order to preserve the Earth.
-If global warming isn’t happening, what would happen if we didn’t overhaul our economy?
Nothing at all. Business as usual, except more pollution.
-If global warming is happening, what would happen if we didn’t act?
We are all fucked.

Where, precisely, would I obtain a “real scientist” to interpret the report? Certainly few “climatologists” are real scientists.

Not only have I studied hard science, but one can read the report autodidactically, doing the research to understand any part they do not already, as they go through it.

You are confusing carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, by the way. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important gases on the planet, it is essential to the existence of life as we know it. It is NOT poisonous, except insofar as too much of anything, even water, is.

And no, the idea of accepting something that may not be true, just because one fears carbon dioxide, is not only foolish, but is literally evil…because the proposed solutions involve violating people’s will, the core definition of “evil”.

CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem, which is designed specifically to regulate it, to keep it at a certain natural level. It is a negative feedback loop, which is why the level has not gyrated crazily throughout natural history.

Whether or not global warming is happening, forcing our industries to “overhaul” is economically crippling, to the point of risking the destruction of our entire way of life. If “going green” really were more efficient, then it might be otherwise, but in fact it’s terribly inefficient, which is why it doesn’t occur when people are free to choose.

Even if global warming were happening, and so far we only have less than one degree of temporary increase in calculated surface temperature, we have no reason to think that these nation-destroying changes would actually stop it.

Oll keerect.
Most of Earth’s long history had CO2 levels far above present ones. But ocean organisms have been too damned efficient in sequestering it, so we’re in a kind of CO2 famine now.

The IPCC reports played stupid number games to inflate the effect of even their own (erroneous) mechanisms by about 7X. One consequence of that is that even the ending of all human CO2 production for a century would reduce temperatures by an amount too small to distinguish from normal daily and yearly variations. For that, we’d starve about 4/5 of the planet’s population. Which the Greens would be fine with; many admit they hope for exactly that. (Maurice Strong and others have signed on to a goal of (literally) destroying the industrial economies of the world to save it.)

I stumbled across an interesting quote by another Australian, this morning while checking out referrers to this article:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

–Senator Steve Fielding of Australia’s Family First Party

…so maybe not ALL Australians are sheeple. I wonder how he feels about the peasant-like surrender of firearms by his people.

one shame about this AGW hysteria is that it is accomplishing one of it’s political goals … to encourage us to make better choices when it comes to the environment. true it’s using vast(?) amounts of our tax dollars to achieve this, true there’s fearmongering and bogey-man stories. unfortunately some governments are going completely overboard, intending to be reliant on unreilable renewable sources, and massive expensive now and (i predict) in the future.

@cmb, i’d ask, can you prove that the ice melting is due to AGW ? which leads to another tennant of the AGW dogma, can we afford to be right ? (ie if this is due to AGW, and we do nothing, and hell freezes over (or boils over), we’re doomed).

One can more reasonably say “if we are wrong, and we do something, could we just make things worse?”

Note that a more likely explanation for the increase in surface temperatures than the greenhouse effect, is the decrease in “global dimming”, which is what they were blaming for the cooling that happened in the 1970s.

See, the “dimming” was apparently from particles in the atmosphere, reflecting head before it could warm the surface. Those particles declined dramatically by the 1990s, resulting in a reduction of global dimming…and that decline may have been from anti-pollution measures. Meaning that the anti-pollution measures of the 1970s-1980s may have CAUSED “global warming”.

So what if reducing our greenhouse gas emissions actually did reduce the greenhouse effect, and drive us into an ice age?

Historically, civilizations fall when the global mean temperature falls, and prosper when it gets warmer.

i accept that we’ve really very little idea about what is causing climate change because it is so complicated. All the models make simplifying assumptions, and none are making reliable extrapolations (IMHO).

as for “buying locally” and “CFC replacements” producing greenhouse gases (or carbon footprint) … so what … i don’t accept that this is having an appreciable (or provable) impact on climate change. i’ve read somewhere that most of the ozone hole was caused by solar flares, maybe, maybe not. i think investigating the phenonomen we found CFCs where we didn’t expect them. reducing them (3rd world countries still use them i think) was a reasonable action … the cost was acceptable.

anyways a couple things are sure … the world’s climate is going to keep changing, people will extrapolate their local conditions (temporal and spatial) and cry “doom” (freezing or boiling), governments will sting us for all the money they can, some people will make bags of money, and some people will regret their actions (however well intentioned).

No, driving more efficient cars is not automatically good, any more than adding more fertilizer to your tomato plant’s soil is automatically good.

I’ve had more than one friend complain that no matter how much they fertilized their tomato plant, it wouldn’t bear fruit…but if a tomato plant has enough fertilizer, it just grows leaves. It doesn’t bear fruit until the fertility declines.

Check out the numbers…THREE TIMES as many owners of compact cars die in accidents, versus mere mid-sized cars.

While I agree that the global warming “greenhouse gas” thing is nonsense:

* It’s still noteworthy that the climate change profiteers are being hypocrites, advocating all kinds of other things that go against their mythology.

* The “ozone hole” was even bigger nonsense. The only significant thinning was the natural one that occurs over the antarctic every winter, purely because there is no sunlight to make more ozone, combined with a huge, dry landmass to create a convection current, cleaning the old ozone out of its normal “layer”. The US was harmed, economically, for no reason whatsoever…conveniently, the big funders of the CFC ban were the very chemical companies that had patents on replacements…and they started lobbying for it right when the patents on the CFCs were running out.

So far, I’ve seen very few of the fearmongers and profiteers admitting they regret their past, now-disproven, actions. Where are the liars who said we’d be out of oil by 1990? We have MORE oil now than we did when they said that in the seventies. Where are the people who pushed for the economy-crippling pollution controls of the 1970s, now that global dimming’s reversal may be heating up the earth’s surface?

These kinds of people are sociopaths. They only care for their own selfish benefit.

One of the most famous contextual lies of the global warming profiteers is exactly what you are describing: They take isolated changes in local weather, and pretend it’s a sign of “global warming”. Some glaciers are actually growing faster than ever before…but some others are shrinking. This is because glaciers are ALWAYS in flux…either growing or shrinking. Given a short history of observation, it’s normal for any one glacier to be setting a record.

But the climate profiteers specifically mention the shrinking ones, as if it were not a local phenomenon, which of course it is.

When there was a record set of hurricanes, a few years ago, they said “oh, look, this is because of global warming! You must give us more funding lest it get even worse!”, yet when the next few years had a record LOW number of hurricanes, they said nothing.

In fact, parts of the antarctic ice sheets have set new records, in recent years…yet you hear nothing about that.

The normal condition of ANY planet is that half of it is abnormally warm, and half is abnormally cool. These fearmongers simply pick local weather from the warm half, and claim it proves doom.

Of course glaciers are always either growing or shrinking. You omit the fact that right now, across the globe, well over 90% of them are shrinking. No merely local phenomenon will suffice there, sorry.

And of course, “their” “saying nothing” about the record low number of hurricanes is simply a falsehood you made up.

Your reply is based on nothing but your own prejudices. As with all denialists, you wish to argue without evidence. In science, it is the experiment that can be reproduced that rules the day. Contentless blather has no standing, and neither do newspaper articles.

If you redo your list above using scientific sources, instead of popular press and denialists, your althernating-theories phenomenon will vanish instantly.

No, in fact a reproduceable experiment is NOT what rules the day, in science.

If it were, then many kinds of junk science would be “science”, like some forms of new age healing.

In fact, what is required in actual science is that you produce a model, a test that is guaranteed to prove the model wrong if it is in error, and then if that test does indeed fail, throw out the model.

Climate profiteers, of course, have done nearly the opposite…their models failed 100% of the time, originally…so they imply adjusted the equations to match the outcomes, until they would appear to work, but without changing the underlying model. If that were valid, then it would be easy to prove that dryads live in willow trees, a single molecule of duck flesh can cure the flu, et cetera.

And note, by the way, that the stories above are often written BY “climate scientists”, meteorologists, et cetera, and certainly cite the opinions and “science” of them. ALL of the New York Times articles are available online and linked to, many of the others you can find yourself (and send me the link, if you do).

I used to think AGW was all a big fuss as the ‘facts’ didn’t fit the ‘theory’.

Then I took the trouble to read through climate history written by someone with a little more knowledge than the newspaper reporters whose job is to look for headlines rather than explain good science.

If anybody has an attention scan that can lasts longer than just browsing newspaper headlines, I recommend:

What I did was download it and script a little Centigrade-Fahrenheit converter.

I should take a moment to sneer at centigrade, while I’m at it…of all the metric system, it’s the most useless. It simply widens the gap between degrees, making the granularity slightly less useful, meanwhile it’s no more objective, still using the freezing and boiling points of water just like Fahrenheit, AND there’s no benefit to it being decimal, as you’re not going to be converting between it and meters or grams.

I think sneering at a measurement system is a little odd, it feels like sneering at decimals, fractions or percentages.

What would be more informative is to put four graphs side by side – Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit (I forget the name of the absolute scale that corresponds to Fahrenheit divisions) and let folks pick their own.

I favour absolute scales personally, because people seem to have a lot of trouble with understanding that 20 degrees is not twice as warm as 10 degrees.

A fun collection of headlines though, I had a great laugh. AGW has it all really, both death and taxes, for everyone! Must go, my laughter is becoming hysterical…

How about the REAL tree hugers stand up. They are NOT WHO THEY SEEM. Carbon TAX, NO Drilling in N America (but the east can drill HERE with no stink from YOU). None of this is cool with me and I AM Loving my land. FAKES!Plant a few trees and quit buying into the sucker controlism (yes I just made that up). Real liberals don’t camp or hunt or fish or conserve… they blame…BLINDLY. LOL

Can I just point out to anyone who doesn’t realise – this idea that “global warming” has been changed to “climate change” is not a good debating point – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in the 1980s, so it’s hardly a recently invented term.

It is within the last two years that climate pseudoscientists have started really pushing to replace the phrase “global warming” with “climate change”, though…and for good reason, since we’ve had two years of global cooling; they need to start emphasizing that ALL change is bad.

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats,
the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like
most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to
reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based
support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So
we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any
doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any
formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I
hope that means being both.”

Which are you? A scientist or propagandist? You cannot be both. As a scientist you should tell it as it is warts and all, the data and models? should be reproducible by others. As you know temperature data, gathered at public expense, is being withheld in highly dubious circumstances, that in itself is suspicious.
You do not have to offer up scare stories, you are a free man having free will to decide between right and wrong, a lesson you seem to have missed.

No, I was addresing Mike who appeared to want to be on both sides. He seemed to be condoning the people who insist that the question is settled, which it isn’t.
Sorry, an unintentional blunder on my part.

So I guess we don’t have any new tools or data about the science behind global warming at right, I mean come on now how much new stuff have we really discovered in the past 10 years or 150 for that matter… I mean electricity and cars and stuff aside we really don’t have anything to assure us we’ve got more smarts than we did 5 years to 500 years… I mean for crap sakes we still use our legs to walk and our mouths to talk.. Surely we are clueless apes..

Thank you for making another point against the global warming fearmongering, Erich.

In fact, we have radically more accurate instruments now, and yet the pseudoscientists act like they know, within one tenth of a degree, what the global mean temperature was 150 years ago…when, in fact, they don’t even know within that factor what it is now, despite better technology. They still only take the temperatures around weather stations, and average them together in a way they wildly guess MIGHT represent the global mean.

No, the global warming terrormongers are purposely deceptive. And I say that as someone who worked with them in the past.

Their ridiculous scale, showing this huge increase that actually adds up to less than a single degree is insanely deceptive.

And yes, the media hypes and distorts everything…which is the point. That’s what people are falling for, today. Note that the media is also citing scientists and journals, and in fact some of the entries ARE journals.

That really puts things into perspective, eh? It’s amazing how fast the opinion changed between warming and “new ice age” as well, several times within the space of a couple of years.

And yes, I suspect they will soon be crying about global cooling. That’s why it’s no longer global warming, it’s “climate change” and “climate chaos.” They want to have plausible deniability when the weather inevitably shifts against what they’ve been saying all along.

Yes, they started going out of their way to call it “climate change” about two years ago, when the global mean temperature began to decline. This shows that they are not simply wrong and easily panicked, but greedy, disingenuous, and corrupt.

Yes, some bureaucrat came to my grade school and showed us on a computer-like device, how we’d be out of oil very soon, and that we must use alternative energy, cut our energy uses, et cetera, in order to not run out of energy by 1988 or so.

The big irony is that we, now, have MORE oil than we did back then. This is because there is far more oil undiscovered, than all the oil we’ve ever known about, and probably will be for some time…and they knew this, back then.

In fact, they exploited the artificial shortage of the embargo to create the FALSE impression of declining oil supplies, when if they were experts, they had to know it was untrue.

Of course they did the same thing during the speculative oil price bubble, last year.

Well, we may not be running out of oil anytime soon, but I’m pretty sure there is only like, I don’t know, one acre of rain forests left. I mean, if my science teacher in junior high had her numbers right.

In fact, the amazon jungle is gigantic, which is why they are able to make it sound like it’s shrinking so quickly…by posting raw numbers instead of percentages.

And, for the record, the amazon jungle contributes NO net oxygen to our breathable atmosphere. The very soil under its trees consume more oxygen than the trees produce. That soil also produces more CO2 than the trees consume.

If you replaced all of the amazon jungle with desert…which I would oppose doing anyway…you would actually end up with a net gain in oxygen, a net loss in CO2. Of course there is a negative feedback loop in the oceans that makes up for this, either direction.

I think your missing the point of the whole “Curb our oil addiction” bit. Truth is, we don’t know how much is left. However, we know the supply will run out eventually and it would be best not to be caught with our pants down.

It seems to me that you are implying that pretending that we need to cut carbon emissions in order to fight global warming is an acceptable way to scare people into complying with addressing your concern that we might be running out of oil.

It seems to me that prices will induce individuals to curb their own ‘addiction’ to oil. As the supply of oil falls, or the expected future supply falls, we will see a rise in prices. At higher prices, new technologies become more feasible, and R&D for new technologies becomes profitable. If we don’t expect oil supply to fall, then their doesn’t seem to be a reason to ‘curb our addiction’. Unless it’s pollution your worried about. In which case, like the great majority of the world’s problems, over pollution is only a symptom of poorly defined property rights.

About

This site has its origins before the word “Blog” existed. Back then its owner, Kaz, was simply thought of as having a website that published socio-political articles with regularity…But the only real difference was that the RSS/XML protocals were not yet used this way.

The website was known as Site of the Sentient, a reference to the famous Words of the Sentient, that Kaz had been editing for years previously.